What has crystallized in the last few weeks of the 2012 presidential campaign is nothing less than a battle between two competing theories of success -- about where success comes from and the role of government in fostering it.
However, this question, which both campaigns have signaled will feature prominently in the upcoming presidential debates, is not one of competing values, personal philosophies, or party platforms. In fact, it has a right and a wrong answer, and social science can tell us which is which.
Mitt Romney's "47 percent" comments reveal the governor's belief in two alternative paths to success. On the one hand, some people achieve their goals because they possess the "right stuff" -- talent, intelligence, and drive. Alternatively, people can get help from external sources -- including, of course, the government. For Romney, aptitude and aid are inversely related: the more of one you have, the less of the other you need.
President Barack Obama's "you didn't build that" remarks express a theory of success very different from Mr. Romney's. According to Mr. Obama's theory, success is most likely when individuals and the environment, including the government, both bring something to the table. For Obama, good environments are no substitute for aptitude and hard work -- rather, they allow these qualities to most fully reveal themselves.
The scientific literature speaks clearly to the debate between these two theories of success, and it tells us that Mr. Obama is right.
Consider a recent study in which a team of researchers examined how genes and socioeconomic status combine to foster the development of cognitive abilities in young children.
The authors followed 750 pairs of identical and fraternal twins from the ages of 10 months to two years, measuring the growth in each child's cognitive abilities over this period. By examining the relationship between cognitive development and the twins' varying degrees of genetic similarity, the researchers were able to estimate the extent to which cognitive ability is genetically determined. The socioeconomic status (SES) of the children was judged through a combination of measures, including parental educational attainment and household income.
What the researchers found was striking. Among high-SES children, genes were strongly predictive of age-related increases in cognitive ability. In other words, children from relatively well-to-do families performed better or worse depending on their genes. These kids developed up to their intrinsic potential. Yet at the lowest levels of SES, genetic variation wasn't related to cognitive development at all. This means that, if you're poor, even having the right stuff doesn't guarantee good developmental outcomes.
This research indicates that poor environments limit children's opportunity to develop aptitudes that they are, in a sense, genetically "destined" to acquire. Like a good seed planted in poor soil, even the best equipped of us cannot be expected to thrive in impoverished circumstances. This, in a nutshell, is Mr. Obama's theory of success.
The implications of this theory are clear: if we want the so-called 47 percent to succeed or fail on its merits -- a requirement from which Mr. Romney believes they are currently spared -- then the solution is more government assistance, not less.
Mr. Obama's theory of success also gains credence from psychological research on "stereotype threat," the experience of anxiety that results from awareness of being negatively stereotyped by others. Members of stigmatized groups often experience such threat in contexts where they know they are expected to do poorly, as when an African American student takes a test of verbal reasoning skills.
Owing to the anxiety caused by stereotype threat, students of color routinely underperform relative to their abilities -- a self-fulfilling pattern that only serves to bolster the negative stereotypes that give rise to threat.
Fortunately, recent research by Stanford University's Gregory Walton and Geoffrey Cohen has identified simple interventions that inoculate students from the experience of stereotype threat. For example, simply by increasing students' sense of "belongingness" in academic settings, the researchers drastically reduced racial gaps in academic performance. Protected from the effect of a threatening stereotype environment, minority students' true abilities shone through.
This work shows that inherent gifts and helpful environments are not inversely related routes to achievement, as Mr. Romney's theory of success would have us believe. Rather, as Mr. Obama asserts, creating a good environment is the only way of ensuring that individuals' aptitudes see the light of day.
If this is so, perhaps the government should be in the business of helping people after all -- through, for instance, progressive taxation that reduces financial burdens on poor families or affirmative action policies that might help change our stereotypes of minority and women professionals.
Studies like ones I've described repudiate the notion that ability and help are interchangeable routes to achievement (the Romney theory of success). Rather, social science corroborates Mr. Obama's contention that the government has a role to play in enabling its citizens to express whatever talents and aptitudes they possess to the greatest possible degree.
Eric D. Knowles is an assistant professor in New York University's Department of Psychology. He studies the psychological factors that influence people's political choices.
Richard (RJ) Eskow: The Real Incumbent in Tonight's Debate Is "the Plutocracy"
Rev. Dr. Stephanie Buckhanon Crowder: A 'Victim's' Account
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
2) While cognitive ability does not necessarily directly equate with "success", it certainly will indicate whether or not you have any chance at "success"....in the sense that you can be a responsible adult and provide for yourself...not in the sense that you will get rich.
And "Protected from the effect of a threatening stereotype environment," Tea Party aside, most people would consider that simply normal.
Winning the lottery doesn't mean that you are going to read to your children.
Winning the lottery doesn't mean that you are going to do math flash cards with your children
Winning the llottery doesn't mean that your child will now get enough sleep
Winning the lottery doesn't mean that you will care enough to discipline your child.
My parents were poor. Bright, but poor. They could have gone on to HIGH SCHOOL, but they had to work to support their extended families. Good people who spent their whole lives poor.
BUT my siblings and I got lucky. We lived in Australia. The government introduced free education (even through university) and free public health care (and I'd be dead if that wasn't available, I would have died in infancy).
That meant that while our parents were poor, we got a free education - and we used it to create small businesses and pay our taxes and employee people.
Could I have done it without that early assistance provided by government assistance? Almost certainly not. Am I happy to pay an extra 2% to level the playing field? Damn right I am.
And before you mock, I just sold my third start-up business and completed the whole capitalist dream. So government assistance to the poor really does work. If you won't trust the science, you can't reject 50 years of personal experience.
I'm simply pointing out that Obama's story - one of overcoming obstacles like those he talks about his books - is largely a narrative of hard work, discipline, and luck. Romney was handed a silver spoon, born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, etc. So I find it ironic that Romney (and the right) love to spout off about hard work, individualism, work ethic, etc, while Obama is saying "you didn't get there on your own."
@Pat, yours is a similarly narrow opinion. I agree completely that no one succeeds wholly on their own. We are talking about matters of degree here, not absolutes.
He would have rather eaten broken glass than take a handout.
So get off your butt and make yourself a better individual....a better employee....a better American.
BO MUST GO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment
This problem has become particularly bad with the rigid uncompromising tea crowd constipating Congress. Time for a major national laxative to blow the tea out and get things moving again.
Every other civilized nation rebuilds their own internal structure as a way to secure more good things for their own people.
Not us.
We have to pretend we cannot afford to invest in our nation.
It's disgusting.
They have obstructed any bills except for the rich, which the Senate won't pass. Again, nothing gets done. The president's hands are tied most of the time.
Bills start in the House, if passed...they go to the Senate, if passed...they go to the president.
Obama is not to blame for the stagnant economy, the lack of jobs; Republicans turn down any bills because they hate the president, vowed to make him a one term president' Republicans are so racist they hated Obama before he was even elected.
Republicans have spent years lying and tearing down the president when in fact it has been the Republicans at fault for hurting all citizens...and they don't care how much we hurt.
Their goal has been to get enough voters angry and brainwashed into blaming the president, who will in turn use their own hatred to vote against the president and against their own best interests.
Vote Democrat Save America...Get the Republican Do-Nothings Out of Our Democracy!
"If this is so, perhaps the government should be in the business of helping people after all . . ."
Actually, your speculation is mandated right at the very beginning of our Constitution--the part about promoting the general welfare.
P.S. Egalitarianism is anathema to the Romneys/Ryans of our nation. Instead, they advocate "meritocracy", which is doublespeak for Social Darwinism.
Please continue.
little words....